1953 Iran Coup

Hannibal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23762970

At last the CIA have finally admitted their underhand way of protecting Americas interests and freedoms abroad by toppling democratically elected governments. People can now begin to understand the hatred and distrust Iranians have of the US, by toppling the Prime Minister and disrespecting Irans right to democracy in effect the US caused Iran to become more extremist and eventually turning to the Ayatollah.
We all know the Arab and Islamic world is deeply unstable but in some ways the US is it's own worst enemy and in many ways they can't even see what they're doing wrong.
They back the Afghan mujahadeen to fight the Soviets and bring the Soviets into a messy war in Afghanistan, this trickles down to the Taliban and onwards to Bin Laden. Backing Sadaam against the Iranians is another one.
Then onto the harshest Islamic regime of them all in Saudi Arabia is backed by the US because they do business with them and ignoring the fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers and Bin Laden himself were Saudi's.
There are many countries around the world particularly in Central and South America that have suffered the ignorance of the US of their democracy and some of their leaders have been toppled by US favoured regimes, Noriega and Pinochet immediately spring to mind.
Is this the freedoms and democracy the US always talks about? or is it play by our rules or we'll overthrow you?. Shame on the CIA and the US.

BuilderPlumber

Before the 1940s or so, the Middle East was not troubled. It was the cold war and US interference as well as Soviet that created the hell we see in parts of it to this day.

With regard to Iran: Iran does not hate America but just wants to be respected by America as an independent country (and Iranian people are more pro US than a lot of the Middle East). Now, there has been wrong done by the Iranian regime on its own people but with the new president, Iran and the US could normalise relations and this would lead to a more democratic Iran and a much needed trade partner for the West.

A lot of missed opportunities and poor choices of words have scuppered previous Us/Iran normalisation attempts. Khatami was very close to forming normal relations but 9/11 and Bush's Axis of Evil speach ended that.

The problem with Mossadeq according to the US was that he was a communist. The US actually invented intolerant Islam and funded it so as it overtook the moderate version. The reason? To scare the USSR!! Hence all the funds into the Mujahedin and the like that of course became al Qaeda and Taliban. The Russians came in to support a communist Afghan regime but the US facilitated the Arabisation of Persian Afghanistan by sending in Saudi Arabian religious fanatics. Thus, Afghanistan became a colony of Saudi Arabians like bin Laden! Same with Iran: the US preferred to see an Islamic revolution replace the Shah than a communist one (Khomeini continued the Shah's work of stamping out the communist Tudeh party in Iran) at the time. Hence, why there was no action to get rid of the new regime.

The US has used post 1979 Iran as a convenient ally when it needed to. Such as in the lead up to get rid of the Taliban (a common enemy then of both countries) when the US accepted Iranian help. Then the US would turn around and say Axis of Evil and undo any progress. Saddam was used the same way.

Now we have a chance again for proper relations between the two. I believe that Iran and the US could sit down and hammer out a deal and be proper friends within a week. Both countries actually share common enemies in Sunni extremism and also Iran is actually one of the few comparatively stable countries in the region and could prove to be a very strategic and helpful ally if the West treated it properly.

Hannibal

The main problem with the US is they try to take the moral highground through clever use of the airwaves and coming across as nice polite mostly white men in suits against other countries and leaders who are not so good at media work. I always find it difficult to understand the Arab world as it's divided into modern day countries that didn't exist before the Ottomans fell and lines were drawn through in some ways a tribal culture. Zionism also unstabled a region struggling to find it's way again. The US of all countries in the world in the 20th century have toppled more governments and committed more war crimes than any other, yet they have never faced upto their wrong doings.

All countries in the Middle East seem to be governed by their religious beliefs first and foremost which creates secterianism, prime exampple can be seen here in Ireland where the ruling protestants harshly treated the catholic majority and led to countless uprisings. Israel can be included in this aswell as they refer to themselves as a Jewish state. Syria is probably the only secular state in the region and it's in danger of falling into the unstable hands of Jihadists if Assad falls. I'm still of the belief that WW3 will start in this region eventually as it's a ticking time bomb. Leaders like Gaddafi, Hussein, Mubarak and Assad for all they done wrong they were relatively stable and never allowed the likes of al Qaeda gain a foothold in their country.

BuilderPlumber

Hannibal wrote: »

The main problem with the US is they try to take the moral highground through clever use of the airwaves and coming across as nice polite mostly white men in suits against other countries and leaders who are not so good at media work. I always find it difficult to understand the Arab world as it's divided into modern day countries that didn't exist before the Ottomans fell and lines were drawn through in some ways a tribal culture. Zionism also unstabled a region struggling to find it's way again. The US of all countries in the world in the 20th century have toppled more governments and committed more war crimes than any other, yet they have never faced upto their wrong doings.

All countries in the Middle East seem to be governed by their religious beliefs first and foremost which creates secterianism, prime exampple can be seen here in Ireland where the ruling protestants harshly treated the catholic majority and led to countless uprisings. Israel can be included in this aswell as they refer to themselves as a Jewish state. Syria is probably the only secular state in the region and it's in danger of falling into the unstable hands of Jihadists if Assad falls. I'm still of the belief that WW3 will start in this region eventually as it's a ticking time bomb. Leaders like Gaddafi, Hussein, Mubarak and Assad for all they done wrong they were relatively stable and never allowed the likes of al Qaeda gain a foothold in their country.

That is true. The US like any other country must face up to its wrongdoings. All the Arab leaders you mention above along with Iran's Khamenei have all never allowed al Qaeda to take a foothold in their countries. Al Qaeda has taken a foothold in countries where the regime has been overthrown or is very weak: failed states like Afghanistan, Somalia, Mali, Iraq and if it happens post Assad Syria.

World War 3 will in my view be between the West and not any country but a very well armed terrorist organisation with perhaps nuclear weapons originating out of either the Middle East or Africa. Al Qaeda are obviously that organisation and unfortunately their ideology will only increase as long as they can thrive on the chaos of failed states.

Hannibal

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

That is true. The US like any other country must face up to its wrongdoings. All the Arab leaders you mention above along with Iran's Khamenei have all never allowed al Qaeda to take a foothold in their countries. Al Qaeda has taken a foothold in countries where the regime has been overthrown or is very weak: failed states like Afghanistan, Somalia, Mali, Iraq and if it happens post Assad Syria.

World War 3 will in my view be between the West and not any country but a very well armed terrorist organisation with perhaps nuclear weapons originating out of either the Middle East or Africa. Al Qaeda are obviously that organisation and unfortunately their ideology will only increase as long as they can thrive on the chaos of failed states.

I agree about WW3, but when cells like Al Qaeda are immersed in every country then how do you combat them? They have to be rooted out manually which is near impossible. I do think attacks on regional powers like Iran, Turkey and Israel will trigger it. Israel in particular are never shy launching rockets on anything they deem to be some sort of threat.

On a related subject to Iran, I was reading a book about the massive heroin problems in Dublin that developed in the late 70's and into the 80's and it's suggested that this explosion of heroin can be traced to the Shah smuggling most of his money out of Iran in the form of heroin

BuilderPlumber

Hannibal wrote: »

I agree about WW3, but when cells like Al Qaeda are immersed in every country then how do you combat them? They have to be rooted out manually which is near impossible. I do think attacks on regional powers like Iran, Turkey and Israel will trigger it. Israel in particular are never shy launching rockets on anything they deem to be some sort of threat.

On a related subject to Iran, I was reading a book about the massive heroin problems in Dublin that developed in the late 70's and into the 80's and it's suggested that this explosion of heroin can be traced to the Shah smuggling most of his money out of Iran in the form of heroin

The Syria war is very dangerous for the region and could well draw Iraq, Lebanon, Israel and maybe even others into it. Al Qaeda are a result of poor decisions made during the cold war and a greedy arms industry. Now, they are too numerous and hidden to root out completely unfortunately. The thrive on situations like those in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is true. A lot of members of the Shah's government turned to heroin dealing for their money and the chaos in Iran and Afghanistan in the early 1980s allowed a lot of it to hit the streets in Dublin and other cities in Europe and elsewhere. From Tehran to Dublin, the 1980s indeed saw a huge upsurge in heroin addiction. That problem remains to this day in many places (Tehran and other Iranian cities are teeming with it at present: Iran's government are fighting a loosing battle to stem the control of the stuff. However, unfortunately, the rogue al Quds division of the Iranian military facilitate drug deals across the Iran/Afghanistan border and are not answerable to the Iranian government or the rest of the Iranian military who are afraid of them and the al Quds know that the rest of the Iranian government don't want a civil war).

InTheTrees

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

World War 3 will in my view be between the West and not any country but a very well armed terrorist organisation with perhaps nuclear weapons originating out of either the Middle East or Africa.

You could say its already begun then?

BuilderPlumber

InTheTrees wrote: »

You could say its already begun then?

You could say this. It depends on what is meant by world war. It is unlikely that we will see 2 powerful sets of armies going to war (like US and Russia) but terrorism and US/Western involvement is global. The damage 9/11, Iraq did to the world economy and society is massive and comparable to WW1 and 2.

Some argue that the cold war which involved various conflicts all over the world incl. Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan as well as Angola, Mozambique and others too was the WW3. And that the war on terror is WW4.

Either way, new conflicts will be not by two superpowers fighting each other but either superpowers using proxies to fight for them like Vietnam was or superpowers crushing a weak enemy like Iraq.